Talk:Second Great War
Hey, something's seriously wrong with the chart here. Brazil was neutral, Canada was defunct, et cetera. This is the GWI chart plus Finland and Ukraine and minus Quebec. I'll fix it later--That should be a pain in the ass.Turtle Fan 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Hate to complain, but the shade of red used for the CP and the shade used for the CP-inclined neutrals are indistinct on the map. Is another color possible? TR 21:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC) They're not indistinct, but they're not consistent; Sweden and Quebec are different colors. And why is Brazil Entente-inclined?Turtle Fan 22:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I remember that being mentioned in TVO, I think. Couldn't guess why. TR 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Brazil said they almost went to war with Colombia. The US had been pro-Colombian. But Germany had been anti-Colombian. And at any rate, Brazil got over it.Turtle Fan 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Wow, this is a really thorough article. Turtle Fan 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) No kidding. TR 16:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Map is wrong in Europe. Germany annexed Luxembourg and the rest of Lorraine after the Great War, so more of France should be German territory and Luxembourg as well. In the section on the war in europe, it states that the german army is equipped with 88mm guns. well i have red all the settling accounts books hundreds of times and never is there a mention of the germans having 88s. can someone please alleviate on the matter? Go ahead, my good man. TR 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Hundreds of times? Wow. Of course, if the Germans are using 88mm guns, we'd most likely never know. Turtle Fan 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Texas and Cuba too? Did the US occupy,along with the CSA, Cuba and take the seceeded Texas? Did Texas remain independant? Did Cuba gain independence? Texas seceded into an independent state that ended up being much more like the Republic of Quebec than anything else (albeit with a much heavier US garrison). Cuba probably is still a part of the CSA (or, rather, USA, now), as I see no reason that they'd give it back to Spain, or to the natives. I remember writing most of this article on Wikipedia. It was fun. - Jelay14 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, I suspected that this was your excellent work. TR 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC) "Casus" vs. "Causes" Casus is perfectly acceptable Latin. Moreover, this is a template, so changing it the article just screws things up. TR 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Ok, we've gone through this once before-casus is Latin. It's a template. Do it again and I will ban you. TR 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC) :While I have no intention of fiddling with anything, why do we casus instead of causes? What if a person didn't know Latin?Zhukov15 (talk) 20:59, July 11, 2013 (UTC) ::It's one of those loan phrases, like ad hoc or et cetera. Because the English language has borrowed the phrase lock stock and barrel, in this case good Latin is good English. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:26, July 11, 2013 (UTC) How many people died in this war? How many people died in this version of World War II? :I don't think there was ever an exact number. TR 00:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ::We can assume higher than GWI, I'm sure. I'd guess we could use OTL numbers as a rough guide and assume the numbers were higher for Americans and French, lower for Japanese and perhaps Chinese (since there were no Allies to come to their aid they would have had a harder time making a war of it) and the same for British (maybe higher because of the A-bombs), Germans, and Russians. Turtle Fan 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ::::Don't forget South America. Not sure how bad things got there, but I think it's safe to say more Chileans, Paraguayans and Argentinians died from 1941-1944 in GW2 than did in OTL. ::::On the other hand, I don't recall mention of any sort of theater of Africa at all. TR 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :::Don't know about the same for Germans. OTL they lost as much as they did because of their leader's insistence on last stands, a war of annihilation with the Russians, and the self-destruction of his own country. Jelay14 06:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ::::Well we got hardly anything to evaluate their TL-191 leader's performance aside from the fact that he won. I'm willing to assume he was more pragmatic than Hitler, but he also faced disadvantages the Nazis didn't: He had to spend the entire war on multiple major fronts against three great powers who were closely coordinating strategy; his enemies were fully armed from the get-go and it's he who got caught napping; and there's no evidence his forces enjoyed the same force-multipliers which the well-armed Nazis did for much of the struggle, though of course there's no evidence they didn't, either. Turtle Fan 04:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Re: How many people died in this war? Thank you very much TR! Its nice to know that there are people like me that consider and ask these questions. One of the most puzzling things for me is the fact that while Jake Featherston and his white supremacist and totalitarian Freedom Party regime in Confederate States of America, are analogues to Hitler and his Nazi German Reich, his invasion of the United States is not an exact analogue to Operation Barbarossa, in that the vast majority of U.S. Americans were white as well, so I can't imagine Featherston trying to ethnically cleanse the United States or try annex territory to C.S.A.? Perhaps he was trying to annex the whole U.S.A. and absorb its white population. What do you think? :No, he just wanted to bitch slap Yankees a few times and stomp on their faces. That was essentially his idea of revenge for USA's victory in the Great War. Jelay14 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC) :Yes, it's best not to get too drawn into the parallelism. Featherston wanted to kill the blacks in the CS, and he wanted to humble the US. His attack was about regaining former CS territory and humbling the US, not ethnic cleansing of the US. TR 00:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC) :What they said. Parallelism ran annoyingly strong in this series but not everything had a 1:1 correspondence. Hell, there were even free elements in Derlavai and Detina. Turtle Fan 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC) ::Perhaps, Featherston wanted to exterminate blacks in US too.Zhukov15 22:12, June 29, 2013 (UTC) :::There conflicting reports as to whether or not this was happening, but, as stated above, Featherston wanted to humble the US. Killing blacks there would have been a bonus during the war itself. TR (talk) 23:10, June 29, 2013 (UTC) ::::We know he reduced the population of Haiti, so he was willing to indulge himself in occupied territory if there was nothing more urgent to do. It certainly wasn't the point of the war, though. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:35, June 30, 2013 (UTC) :::::And it's worth pointing out that Haiti had been a sore point for the CS for generations; Featherston was fulfilling a longstanding CS goal. TR (talk) 05:23, June 30, 2013 (UTC) :::On the other hand, the CS let Driver and his father be exchanged for Confederate civilians. Might be practical politics but it does indicate to me that Jake wasn't going to engage in that on territory he wasn't going to keep. US citizens out, CS residents to the camps. ML4E (talk) 23:43, July 1, 2013 (UTC) Start and End Dates The exact dates that 24.190.224.132 provided are for N. America. France and Britain declared war on Germany a few days (or weeks) prior to Jake's invasion. Also, my recollection (although I'm not 100% sure) is that it dragged on a little longer in Europe too. ML4E 21:19, September 4, 2009 (UTC) Russia not communist? Why did Russia not become communist following the Great War? Nothing I read in this series would lead me to believe that the Czar could retain control. The Eastern Front played out as it did in real life, so the results should have been the same. In the Civil War that followed in Russia, the only way that the White Army could have defeated the Red Army was if the international community largely increased its backing of the White Army. In real life, most nations provided arms and supplies to the White Army already. In Turtledove's Universe, I would expect that the US would supply little or no arms and supplies to the White Army due to the Socialists being in charge at that time. This would, in fact, make it more likely that the Red Army would defeat the White Army, resulting in a communist Russia. If anyone has a logical theory on why Russia doesn't go communist in this timeline, please let me know. This has been bugging me ever since I first read the series, years ago. :The information available indicates that Russia pulled out of the war in Spring 1917 after the Tsar's abdication, so the Eastern Front was in fact closed a couple of months earlier than in OTL. In OTL, the Provisional Government's decision to continue the war gave the Bolsheviks a critical weapon to attack the Provisional Government with, a weapon that probably did not exist in TL-191. So a critical source of popular support is "lost" to the Bolsheviks from the outset. (Indeed, it's quite possible Lenin never even made it back to Russia in this timeline, but it's never addressed.) :There is also the absence of the Russo-Japanese War, so while it appears that the Eastern Front is the same, it isn't necessarily so. TR 19:12, September 26, 2009 (UTC) :That and Imperial Germany could have provided massive amounts of aid to the White Army. Most countries did support it but hardly any did so in a significant or organized manner. Of course that does raise the question of why Mikhail declared for the Entente in '41 and why the Reds were beneficiaries of CP aid in GW2. :Well actually the former provides an answer for the latter. Wars like this do produce shifting alliances, no doubt. Turtle Fan 21:04, September 26, 2009 (UTC) ::The historian Andrew Roberts wrote a counterfactual history on the topic a few years back. Essentially, Lenin was assassinated on his return to Russia. The provisional government disengaged from the war a year early, losing Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states (this also happened in Southern Victory), and elected Aleksandr Kerensky as Prime Minister earlier than OTL. Kerensky nationalised the banks and pushed through agrarian and bureaucratic reforms, pre-empting the Bolsheviks' slogan of "Peace, Land and Bread". ::Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks lost support among nationalists by calling for the liberation of the remaining colonies so soon after the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. They also didn't have a galvanising leader as Lenin was dead, Trotsky had been arrested and Stalin was supporting Kerensky in OTL until mid-1917. All these factors lead to the Red Army being wiped out by 1926 (again, the same as Southern Victory). Unlike Southern Victory, however, the Royal Family is deported to Switzerland and Kerensky establishes a republic. Barrel Nagurski 02:38, September 12, 2010 (UTC) Japan Since Japan turns on her so-called allies in the middle of the war, perhaps the combatants section of the sidebar should be modified to put Japan (and Siam) into a third category? Barrel Nagurski 10:46, September 11, 2010 (UTC) :We don't know that Thailand followed Japan in doing the switch, or that they were in the war to begin with, come to that. I'd be up for putting Japan on both sides of the chart, though, with a note explaining the switch attached somewhere in there. Turtle Fan 21:56, September 11, 2010 (UTC) ::True, it's not definitively stated whether Siam fought in the war, but Fremont Dalby does say "Siam's on Japan's side, not England's", implying that they supported the Japanese push into Malaya politically, and possibly with troops or allowing the invasion to be launched from their territory. Barrel Nagurski 01:21, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :::Really? I have no recollection of anyone mentioning Thailand in the series. We'll have to redo some articles of that checks out. Turtle Fan 03:22, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :::: The Grapple, page 80. Barrel Nagurski 04:32, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :::: I put a note in explaining the switch; if you'd prefer to put Japan in both columns and the years in which they were in each party, please do so. Barrel Nagurski 01:28, November 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::Looks good to me. Turtle Fan 03:51, November 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::You guys are right. Japan should be on a third combatants list. The country betrayed the Entence and the Central Powers by invading colonies of the UK, France, and the Netherlands. Parts of China aswell. Its completely on its own side after 1943. :::::Also, Texas and Cuba (Cuban Rebels) need to be added to the combatants list under the Central Powers. Even thought it has been occupied by the USA since 1917, Canada should be added to the list under the side of the Entence. ::::: 23:07, December 6, 2013 (UTC)Jacob Chesley The United Kingdom's Flag Would the United Kingdom really have converted back to its old 1707-1801 flag after it lost Ireland after the Great War? In my opinion, it would have been unlikely. Australia and New Zealand would probably still be using their current flags. Same thing with Hong Kong and the other British colonies like South Africa. The Canadian Rebels would probably still be using their old flag (the blue one) when they were revolting against the United States. I was just wondering about that. Besides, some of the battles of the Seond Great War had the current British flag in the war table. -- 20:41, January 16, 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian